ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060843
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ionut Niculae Nae | Gourmet Food Market |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00074876-001 | 27/08/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he was penalised or threatened with penalisation by his employer for having made a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.
The complainant was employed on March 3rd, 2025, and was in the course of his probation when his employment was terminated on July 78th, 2025.
The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.
He says that his employment was terminated immediately, without any prior oral or written warning, and the reason given for his dismissal was fabricated and unjustified.
On June 14th, a supervisor left her shift shortly after starting, leaving the team understaffed and under pressure. She returned to work the next day, 15th June, despite in his view, which he shared with his operational manager, that she should not have been allowed to work the next day because her behaviour was affecting everyone.
He formally raised this issue, and a meeting was held with HR, and his operational manager on June 25th, Unfortunately, instead of addressing the supervisor’s misconduct, they placed the blame on the complainant.
This is the incident on which he grounds the Protected Disclosure. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent denied that any Protected Disclosure was made by the complainant and says that there is no case to answer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The incident referred to above involved a fairly low-level workplace dispute between the complainant and a co-worker. There was intervention by the HR Department, and a meeting took place with the complainant to address the issue.
There was no allegation made by the complainant of actual or possible unlawful wrongdoing on the part of the respondent or any of its employees as required by the Act.
The complainant accepted this in the course of his evidence.
It was clear that he did not properly understand the nature of a complaint under this Act and appeared to believe that it covered any grievance made to an employer.
The complaint is entirely misconceived and is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reason set out above Complaint CA-00074876-001 is not well founded. |
Dated: 10-04-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Protected Disclosure |